Karnataka High Court
Shashank Viswanath vs Karnataka State Law University on 13 March, 2014
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 13th DAY OF MARCH, 2014
BEFORE:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
WRIT PETITION No.25809 OF 2010 (EDN-AD)
CONNECTED WITH
WRIT PETITION No.25855 OF 2010 (EDN-AD),
WRIT PETITION No.26840 OF 2010 (EDN-AD)
WRIT PETITION Nos.27738-39 OF 2010(EDN-AD)
WRIT PETITION No.28231 OF 2012 (EDN-AD)
WRIT PETITION No.36828 OF 2013 (EDN-AD)
BETWEEN:
IN W.P.No.25809/2010
BETWEEN:
Shashank Viswanath,
Son of Late N. Vishwanath,
Aged about 28 years,
Residing at Flat No.407,
4th Floor, Pyramid Pinnacle,
35th "A" Main, 17th Cross,
J.P.Nagar 6th Phase,
Bangalore - 560 078.
...PETITIONER
2
(By Shri. K.N. Subba Reddy, Advocate)
AND:
1. Karnataka State Law University,
Navanagar,
Hubli - 580 025,
Represented by its Registrar.
2. Seshadripuram Law College,
Seshadripuram,
Bangalore - 560 020,
Represented by its Principal.
...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. Basavaraj Kareddy, Advocate for Respondent No.1
Respondent No.2 served and unrepresented)
This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to quash the endorsement dated
10.8.2010 issued by the respondent no.2 college vide Annexure-C
and direct the respondent no.1 University to permit the petitioner
to get his admission to 5 years LL.B Course in the Academic Year
of 2010-2011 and allow the petitioner to prosecute his studies.
IN W.P.No.25855/2010
BETWEEN:
Sri. B.N. Manjunath,
Son of B.A. Nagaraj,
Aged: 30 years,
Occupation: Student,
Add: B.B.Road,
Behind Balaji Traders,
Devanahalli - 562 110. ...PETITIONER
3
(By Shri. Mrutyunjaya S Hallikeri, Advocate)
AND:
1. Karnataka State Law University,
By its Secretary,
Navanagar,
Hubli - 580 025.
2. Visvesarapura College of Law,
Srigandhada Kaval,
Outer Ring Road,
Magadi Main Road,
Bangalore - 560 091.
...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. Basavaraj Kareddy, Advocate for Respondent No.1
This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to quash the regulations produced at
Annexure-F so far as it relates to regulation 7(b) and (c), issued by
the respondent ano.1 in so far as petitioner is concerned and etc;
IN W.P.No.26840/2010
BETWEEN:
Naveeda Kubra,
Aged: 30 years,
Daughter of Mohammed Javeed,
Residing at P 13/3,
DGQA Residential Complex,
Gunta Vihar, J.C.Nagar,
Bangalore.
...PETITIONER
4
(By Shri. K.N. Subba Reddy, Advocate)
AND:
1. Karnataka State Law University,
Navanagar,
Hubli - 580 025,
Represented by its Registrar.
2. Seshadripuram Law College,
Seshadripuram,
Bangalore - 560 020,
Represented by its Princpal.
...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. Basavaraj Kareddy, Advocate for Respondent No.1
Respondent no.2 served and unrepresented)
This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to quash the endorsement dated
07.08.2010 issued by the respondent no.2 college vide Annexure-
C and direct the first respondent University to permit the
petitioner to get her admission to 5 years LL.B Course in the
Academic year of 2010-2011 and allow the petitioner to prosecute
her studies.
IN W.P.Nos.27738-739/2010
BETWEEN:
1. Sri. Lohith,
Son of Sri. M. Murthy,
Aged about 21 years,
Residing at No.8/3,
5
'Rajarajeshwari Nilaya',
Near Temple Bus Stand,
Rajarajeshwarinagar,
Bangalore - 560 098.
2. Nitesh A More,
Son of Sri. Anil More,
Aged about 21 years,
Residing at No.54,
'Sowhardha Nilaya',
Papareddy Palya,
Nagarbhavi,
Bangalore - 560 091.
...PETITIONERS
(By Shri. S. Nagabhushana, Advocate)
AND:
1. Karnataka State Law University,
Navanagar,
Hubli,
Represented by its Registrar.
2. V.V.Puram Law College,
V.V.Puram,
Bangalore,
Represented by its Principal.
...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. Basavaraj Kareddy, Advocate for Respondent No.1
Respondent no.2 served and unrepresented)
These Writ Petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to quash the endorsement dated
6
24.8.2010 issued by the second respondent vide Annexure-C and
direct the first respondent University to permit the petitioners to
get their admission to 5 years LLB Course in the Academic Year
2010-2011 and allow the petitioner to pursue their respective
studies.
IN W.P.No.28231/2012
BETWEEN:
Smt. Nagarathna,
Wife of Late Sri Bhaskar,
Aged about 25 years,
Residing at No.22-G,
6th Street, Jogupalya,
Ulsoor, Bangalore - 560 008.
...PETITIONER
(By Shri. Arun Shyam, Advocate for M/s. Dharmashree
Associates)
AND:
1. The Karnataka State Law
University,
Represented by its Secretary,
Navanagar,
Hubli - 580 025,
Dharwad District.
2. Seshadripuram Law College,
Represented by its Principal,
Seshadripuram,
Bangalore - 560 020.
7
3. Bar Council of India,
Represented by its Chairman,
New Delhi.
...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. Basavraj Kareddy, Advocate for Respondent No.1
Smt. M.P. Geethadevi, Advocate for Respondent No.3
Respondent no.2 served and unrepresented)
This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to direct the first respondent
University to issue necessary instructions/directions to the second
respondent college to admit the petitioner to five year LLB Course
and direct the first respondent Karnataka State Law University to
give necessary instructions to the second respondent,
Seshadripuram Law College to admit the petitioner for 5 years
LLB Course in the second respondent Law College.
IN W.P.No.36828/2013
BETWEEN:
N.U. Manjunath,
Son of Uday Kumar,
Aged about 17 years,
Since minor represented by
His natural mother Meenakshi
Wife of Uday Kumar,
Resident of "Utham Nivas",
2nd Main Road,
Sheshadripuram,
Bangalore - 560 020.
...PETITIONER
(By Shri. M.V. Hiremath, Advocate)
8
AND:
1. Karnataka State Law University
Navanagar,
Hubli - 580 025.
Represented by its Vice Chancellor.
2. Seshadripuram College of Law,
Seshadripuram,
Bangalore - 560 020.
Represented by its Principal,
3. Bar Council of India,
21, Rouse Avenue Institutional Area,
New Delhi - 110 002.
Represented by Chairman.
...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. Basavaraj Kareddy, Advocate for Respondent No.1
Smt. M.P. Geethadevi, Advocate for Respondent No.3
Respondent No.2 served and unrepresented )
*****
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to quash the admission notification
dated 29.4.2013, issued by the first respondent as per Annexure-D
and also to quash the impugned endorsement dated 12.8.2013,
issued by the second respondent, vide Annexure-C, by issue of
writ in the nature of certiorari and etc;
These petitions, having been heard and reserved on
27.01.2014 and coming on for Pronouncement of Orders this day,
the Court delivered the following:-
9
ORDER
This batch of cases are disposed of by this common order, as the petitioners are almost similarly placed and are aggrieved by identical circumstances.
2. The particulars of each of these petitioners is furnished hereunder in a tabular form for ready reference:
Sl.No. Writ Petition Qualification Age Percentage Course to Number of marks which Admission sought to
1. W.P.25809/2010 Pre- 28 43.33% 5 year University years LL.B. Course
2. W.P.25855/2010 Pre- 30 40% 5 year University years LL.B. Course
3. W.P.26840/2010 Pre- 30 40.16% 5 year University years LL.B. Course
4. W.P.27738- Pre- 21 43.83% 5 year 39/2010 University years LL.B. Course
5. W.P.28231/2012 One Year 25 Second 5 year Pre- years Class LL.B. University Course 10 Distance Education
6. W.P.36828/2013 Pre- 17 41.83% 5 year University years LL.B. Course
3. Each of the petitioners who had passed the Two year Pre-University Course, except the petitioner in WP 28231/2012 - who is said to have passed a One-year Pre-University Course through distance education, had sought admission to the Five year LL.B Course. The admission was denied on the ground that the minimum percentage of marks prescribed in the qualifying examination was 45% and that the petitioners had not secured the requisite minimum percentage of marks to be eligible for admission. In so far as the petitioner in WP 28231/2012 is concerned, her admission was denied on the ground she had completed the Pre-University Course through distance education and not as a regular Course.
11
4. It is contended that the Universities across the State of Karnataka are governed by the Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000 (Hereinafter referred to as the "KSU Act", for brevity) . The Law Colleges in the State were affiliated to the respective Universities within whose jurisdiction they were located. The Bangalore University and other Universities in the State had framed the regulations governing the eligibility for admissions to law courses.
The Bar Council of India, a body corporate, constituted under Section 4 of the Advocates Act, 1961 (Hereinafter referred to as the '1961 Act' for brevity), has for its functions, amongst other functions, to promote legal education and to lay down standards of such education in consultation with Universities in India imparting such education and the State Bar Councils; and to recognize Universities whose degree in law shall be a qualification for enrolment as an advocate. In that regard the Bar Council has framed rules known as the Rules of Legal Education, 2008 (Hereinafter referred to as the '2008 Rules', for brevity). 12
With the establishment of the Karnataka State Law University, all the law colleges are brought under the control of the said University. The Vice Chancellor of the said University is said to have framed Regulations governing the Five Year LL.B Course. The petitioners allege that the said Regulations are a complete deviation from the Regulations framed by the Universities governed under the Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000. It is alleged that the Vice Chancellor has blindly incorporated the content of the Rules of Legal Education, 2008 arbitrarily and without application of mind.
It is contended that Section 33 of the Karnataka State Law University Act, 2009 provides for the constitution of an Academic Council. The power to regulate admissions and the eligibility criteria is conferred on the said Council. Hence the Regulations framed by the Vice Chancellor on his own initiative, is clearly without authority of law and are liable to be quashed. The said Regulations are also silent as regards the assessment of students who had secured between 40 and 45% of marks at their qualifying 13 examination but who could yet prove their mettle at an entrance test and if successful, could secure admission. Hence that class of candidates on the borderline of eligibility have been unfairly discriminated and denied a right to legal education.
It is further contended that the prescription of a maximum age, apart from the minimum marks, for admission is without any basis or reason.
5. On the other hand, it is contended on behalf of the respondent, Karnataka State Law University, that in terms of the Advocates Act, 1961 and the Rules of Legal Education, 2008, it is mandatory that every University and Centre imparting legal education is recognized by the BCI. All the Courses and degrees offered by any University or a Centre of legal education requires recognition by the BCI. Therefore it is but natural that the Regulations framed by the University are in conformity with the Rules of Legal education.
It is further stated that in terms of Section 86 of the KSLU Act, 2009, exercising transitory power, the first Vice Chancellor - 14 acting for the Academic council, which was yet to be constituted, had framed the Regulations governing the Course, which have in turn received the assent of the Chancellor and are duly notified as on 24-6-2009.
6. The point for consideration is whether the petitioners, except one, can be considered to be eligible for admission to the Five year LL.B Course on the basis of the percentage of marks obtained by them below the minimum prescribed.
7. In a batch of writ petitions in WP 19608/2010 and connected petitions, pertaining to the denial of admission of candidates to the Three year LL.B Degree Course on the ground that they did not possess the eligibility as prescribed by the 2008 Rules - the same have been dismissed this day, while upholding the qualification prescribed for admission by the University consequent upon the said Rules coming into force.
The very reasoning and the case law referred to therein would equally apply to the present petitions. 15
The functions of the BCI are prescribed under Section 7 of the 1961 Act, which includes its duty to promote legal education and to lay down standards of such education in consultation with the Universities in India imparting such education and the State Bar Councils. Another function of the BCI is to recognize Universities, whose degree in law shall be a qualification for enrolment as an advocate and for that purpose to visit and inspect Universities, or direct the State Bar Councils to visit and inspect the said Universities, in its stead.
Under Section 24 of the 1961 Act, a person can be enrolled as an advocate only if he satisfies the conditions prescribed there under, one of which is that the law degree obtained by that person is from any University recognized by the BCI.
Under Section 49 of the 1961 Act, a general power is conferred on the BCI to make rules for discharging its functions, inter alia, in the matter of the minimum qualifications required for admission to a course of degree in law in any recognized University. As also the standards of legal education to be observed 16 by universities in India and the inspection of Universities for that purpose.
The above provisions would leave no room for doubt as to the power and authority of the BCI to make rules governing minimum eligibility criteria, be it with regard to educational qualification, minimum marks obtained in the qualifying exam or other incidental qualifications. It may even prescribe the same to be incorporated in the relevant Rules or Regulations, if any, framed by the Universities in that regard.
Rule 7 of the 2008 Rules prescribes the minimum percentage of marks to be secured in the qualifying examination to secure admission to the LL.B. Degree Course.
The above requirements, apart from other qualifications have been incorporated in the Regulations framed by the KSLU.
On a overall view it cannot be said that there is any violation of any statutory provision by virtue of the above prescription made by the BCI. It is also brought on record that the Rules of Legal Education, 2008, under Part IV of the BCI Rules 17 are made by the BCI in consultation with the Universities and the State Bar Councils. (Vide Resolution No.110/2008, dated 14th September, 2008). Hence it would not be for this Court to sit in appeal over the consensual decision of the BCI and others, which was the basis for the 2008 Rules, in the absence of any apparent arbitrariness or illegality.
In so far as the contention as to the Regulations Governing the Three Year LL. B. Degree, framed under the KSLU Act being invalid and inapplicable, is concerned, even if the same are eschewed, the resultant position would be that the case of the petitioners would still have to be viewed with reference to the 2008 Rules and hence the alleged infirmity if any, pales into insignificance. This is especially so if the Regulations framed, are deemed to have been made under Section 87 of the KSLU Act. In that, an argument is canvassed that the first Vice Chancellor had no jurisdiction to frame the Regulations in exercise of power under the enabling provision conferring Transitory powers under Section 86 of the Act. Even if it is to be accepted that Section 86 18 does not specifically confer the power, on the first Vice Chancellor, to make Regulations , unlike the specific reference to his power of making Statutes, the power to modify the prevailing Regulations can be traced to Section 87, which makes it incumbent on the first Vice Chancellor to bring the pre-existing Regulations made under the Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000 in line with the requirements under the 2008 Rules, as a temporary measure. The power to make such Regulations is no doubt in the exclusive domain of the Academic Council, which has been constituted later.
As regards the several petitioners who have been admitted to the Course and some of them having completed the Course and having been declared as passed and even having received their Degree Certificates, are concerned, it was possible for them to pursue the Course only by virtue of conditional interim orders of this Court.
The petitioners who have obtained degree certificates would not be enabled to enroll themselves as advocates, even if 19 they have obtained such certificates, as their very admission to the Course was not permissible. But it cannot be ignored that the several petitioners who are before this court have successfully completed the Course.
Therefore it would serve the ends of justice and would not in any manner lower the standards ,which the BCI endeavours to maintain in the legal profession, if the petitioners are conferred the LL.B Degree on successful completion of the Course, albeit with a total bar against enrollment. (This being indicated prominently in the Degree Certificate.) This extra- ordinary measure however is to be extended only to the petitioners. This exercise should not again be held against the University or the respective colleges - in subjecting the said entities to any punitive or retaliatory action by the BCI. It is the above direction which would be given effect to and the consequent action, if any, on their part is not on the volition of either the University, or the respective college.
20
Accordingly, the petitioners who have successfully completed the course shall be awarded the Degree Certificate by the University, in terms as aforesaid. In so far as those petitioners who are pursuing the Course presently shall be allowed to complete the Course and shall also be awarded Degree Certificates similarly as aforesaid.
Subject to the above direction, the writ petitions are dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE KS/nv*